The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 1, 2009, 08:16 AM   #1
ninjatoth
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: sanford,mi
Posts: 590
Why Is Smith and Wesson Better?

just wondering why smiths are better,are there different materials,is the steel better,or am I just buying the name.I own Taurus/Rossi's,and they seem to be fine,so why is Smith and Wesson better?
ninjatoth is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 08:25 AM   #2
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,721
Quote:
why is Smith and Wesson better?
It's not.....Ruger is.
hoytinak is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 08:44 AM   #3
18DAI
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 2,156
It isn't anymore. The current company calling itself Smith & Wesson is simply pedaling junk, under a famous name and trademark.

The older S&W's were fitted, and assembled by skilled labor. They were better, and still are. Regards 18DAI.
__________________
S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Everything you need in a revolver, and nothing you don't.
18DAI is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 08:46 AM   #4
Radagast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2001
Posts: 449
S&W have a better turn around time and will pay shipping on warranty repairs.

S&W is less likely to need repairs, there have been plenty of threads discussing Taurus products that have required repairs straight out of the box.

S&W have a reputation for good triggers and accuracy, there have been posts complaining about Taurus accuracy, though I don't recall any about bad triggers. S&W triggers tend to be better than Ruger triggers out of the box.

There are good and bad products from all the manufacturers, but S&W tends to balance more on the good side of the ledger.
Radagast is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 08:52 AM   #5
Radagast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2001
Posts: 449
Also note that because S&W have installed an internal lock that has on rare occasions caused guns to jam, and more importantly, signed an agreement with the Clinton administration that would have seriously degraded gun rights, some members will degrade S&W anytime, anywhere, any when.

My S&W from 1972 sits beside me with the cylinder unable to lock up - it's from the hand fitted era. I know I can take it to the S&W service center here in my city ( I'm in Australia) and it will be repaired by a S&W armorer. The Taurus importer doesn't have a gunsmith. Even on the other side of the world S&W has better service. :P
BTW, I have had three S&Ws break internal parts through lots of use, but I would still take them over the three Taurii I checked out at the local dealer, each of which had timing issues out of the box.
Radagast is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 08:55 AM   #6
BlayGlock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 243
I have had all kinds of different brands of revolvers. The older Smiths are very well made and have really nice triggers. Thier newer stuff is no better or worse than any of the other majors. Among the newest production, Ruger triggers are better unless you get a Smith performance shop. I've shot several of the new Smith, Ruger, and Taurus .357 mags. That being said I've had 4 Taurus revolvers and none of them have ever given me a problem. All of them have been purchased new within the last year, and have had hundreds of rounds shot through them.
__________________
(Space for Rent.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txeGZoBW7vY
The Double Glock TM.
BlayGlock is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 09:49 AM   #7
hardluk1
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 600
Find a older Dan Wesson and the smith and all the rest seem like a second place gun. Good that they did not survive thanks to cz or make a really small revolver ,i would have to find one. I do have a 2 old taurus revolvers that i would not trade in both 38 and 22, and ruger is built like a tank, just a solid gun. Smith?? just to darn costly.
hardluk1 is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 10:18 AM   #8
Whirlwind06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 998
Are they better? don't know. They have better resale value though.
Whirlwind06 is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 10:49 AM   #9
stevieboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2008
Posts: 1,695
I don't know what the word "better" means in the context of subjective judgments about one manufacturer's product vs. another's. It's simply impossible to quantify quality because quality depends so much on the tastes of those who purchase the product. I will say this, however. I think that the fit and finish on modern Smiths (post-lock, with MIM parts, stainless steel manufacture, no pinned barrel or recessed cylinders) is extraordinary. I have never purchased a "modern" Smith revolver that gave me anything less than was advertised. Smith produces the largest variety of revolvers of any manufacturer, their attention to detail is outstanding, and their warranty service is unparalleled. I know that what I've just said is calculated to raise the hackles of the "it all went to Hell in 1982 when they discontinued pinned barrels" crowd not to mention those who think that installation of the lock was an act of perfidy. But, from my subjective judgment (and I've purchased several post-lock Smith revolvers) Smith is an outstanding buy.

Having said that, I also own several older Smith revolvers and I find them to be great, too. Which is to say that I believe that Smith has maintained its standing as a foremost manufacturer even with all of the design modifications and production changes that it has made over the years.
stevieboy is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 10:55 AM   #10
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 15,248
Quote:
Why Is Smith and Wesson Better?
Better than what? S&W uses high quality materials and skilled workmen to manufacture high quality firearms. So do many other manufacturers. Some manfacturers do not, however, and their firearms are often unreliable. So, what it all comes down to is reliability and durability. Or, in layman's terms, you get what you pay for. You want cheap, buy cheap, but it will be more expensive in the long run.
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Scorch is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 11:14 AM   #11
levrluvr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: no. IL
Posts: 276
Quote:
Find a older Dan Wesson and the smith and all the rest seem like a second place gun.
I'm a DW fan, and after all, it has the Wesson name. Not made anymore, which is sad considering the quality of the Monson guns.

I love Smith & Wesson's as well, but one can never discount a good Ruger- they may not be quite as pretty, but are damn near indestructible, and the trigger can be improved if needed.
I'm pretty confident in saying that anyone getting involved in revolvers would be satisfied with any of the three.
levrluvr is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 11:33 AM   #12
Jart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
just wondering why smiths are better,are there different materials,is the steel better,or am I just buying the name.I own Taurus/Rossi's,and they seem to be fine,so why is Smith and Wesson better?
"Better" is about as slippery a concept as there is. However, since you've defined a context of Taurus / Rossi this spares us from Ruger, DW, Korth, Colt and a host of other distactions.

One man's opinion:
http://grantcunningham.com/blog_file...urus_work.html

Seems plausible. If the materials, polishing and finishing is approximately equal but the prices are notably different, there are only a few reasons for the pricing discrepancy:
1. One scrimps on the precision of the internal parts.
2. Cost cutting in customer service.
3. One gets more simply due to the name.
4. Major differences in labor and overhead costs not offset by import costs.
5. Majick and Steamworks obscura.
6. Various efficiencies of fabrication and/or distribution.
7. Others which I've forgotten.

Grant Cunningham leans toward #1, folks that dislike S&W like #3, the rest of us probably think most, with the exception of #5, are contributory.

Those of us enamored of the principle of TANSTAAFL assume, as an article of faith, that if there's a big price difference you're giving up something. This could be as esoteric as "brand recognition" or as solid as "second rate internals" or as irrelevant to function as "resale value".

Generally, you're going to have to sort it out for yourself.
Jart is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 12:39 PM   #13
Whirlwind06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 998
Quote:
as irrelevant to function as "resale value".
It may be irrelevant directly to function, but it is not IMO irrelevant in terms of a measure of a products overall quality. Not sure if that makes any sense I think I'm channeling a MBA right now
Whirlwind06 is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 01:05 PM   #14
davem
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Posts: 458
Years ago everything in a S & W, including the screws, were made in the plant. The internal mechanism lends itself well to an "action job" and some of the early Taurus revolvers were internally S & W clones although some later Taurus revolvers used internal parts of a different design.
I agree, the older S & W's are a beautiful thing.
davem is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 01:38 PM   #15
ninjatoth
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: sanford,mi
Posts: 590
Quote:
"Better" is about as slippery a concept as there is.
Its not slippery,its simple.Is the smith good?Is it worth 2x the price of an"off brand",Rossi,Taurus,Charter,etc.that are about 1/2 the price as smith,or is it made the same as these basically,with the same lifespan.
ninjatoth is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 02:19 PM   #16
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
If you get a Taurus that works as it should without fail, "better" is a very subjective term. If you get one that does not work, you'll understand why S&W or Ruger are "better."
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 02:24 PM   #17
Jart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2001
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
Its not slippery,its simple.
We are in disagreement. The concept is silppery because our weighting of various factors may not be similar.

If I place resale above original purchase cost, the S&W is typically better.
If I prioritize original purchase cost above anything else, the Taurus is generally better.

Some of these same things enter a decision made between, to pick a couple products at random, a Cadillac CTS and a Chevy Malibu.

But I'm curious: what would be your speculation to explain the difference in pricing between a roughly equivelant Taurus vs. S&W?

And, FWIW, when I checked on an online discounter recently a 629-4" .44 was priced at 707.00 while a Taurus 44SS4 .44 was 499.00. A difference of 40% rather than 100%. I'm not questioning your claim of "double" but it's probably based on an equivelant I wasn't checking.

Yet another tangential note: the same site showed the Ruger KRH-445 at 633.00 - now we're talking under 12% from the Ruger to the S&W while the Ruger is a 27% bump from the Taurus.

Would you more readily accept a 27% bump for a Ruger than a 40% bump for a S&W?

I did notice both the Taurus and Ruger were sold out while the S&W was available. Reminds me of old Uncle Ned when he was running a hobby shop: a woman came in and, noting that the bottles of Tester's were marked at 35 cents, remarked: "Clyde's down the street sells Tester's for 29 cents."

Uncle Ned counseled her to buy the paint from Clyde whereupon she said Clyde had none in stock.

The reply was: "If I didn't have any I could sell it for 29 cents too."

The moral is: availability counts for something - even if it's only available due to being overpriced. Right now, at that specific retailer, in that specific configuration, it's the only game in town.

/channeling Adam Smith
Jart is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 03:36 PM   #18
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
Better? Well, I never had any mechanical problems from the Taurus 445 I previously owned (it was sold because it didn't fit me well and I didn't care for its DAO trigger), but when the time came to sell it I had a difficult time finding anyone who'd give me more than $100 for it. S&W will retain it's value much better than a Taurus or Rossi. Also, Taurus and Rossi have notoriously poor customer service while S&W's is some of the best in the industry. When you buy a revolver, you pay for more than just the gun.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 04:21 PM   #19
ninjatoth
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: sanford,mi
Posts: 590
I use the term better because a smith is twice the price of a taurus,why is it so much more if it is not "better"?
ninjatoth is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 04:25 PM   #20
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Are the newer Smith and Wessons as good as those from yesteryear? Probably no. Are they better than Taurus/Rossi? Undoubtedly. Lower failure rate and great customer service. Are they better than Ruger? Arguable, though SW does offer more choices.

I potentially bet my life on a Smith and Wesson when I carry one. I wouldn't do that with a Taurus or Rossi revolver. That's what makes it better.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 04:31 PM   #21
ninjatoth
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: sanford,mi
Posts: 590
[QUOTE][But I'm curious: what would be your speculation to explain the difference in pricing between a roughly equivelant Taurus vs. S&W?/QUOTE]
my taurus .22 94 was $290,and the equivalent smith was $630,not sure on the model number,but it looked just like the 38s.I got my rossi .357 for $325,but the smith was $680,however,it was a little larger frame than the rossi.Some smith 38s were $440 and the same in taurus were $290.,that one wasnt twice the price,but genrally I can get a taurus for $300ish,and a smith for $600ish where I live,all new guns.
ninjatoth is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 04:55 PM   #22
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
In my experience, the problem with Taurus is, and always has been, quality control. If you get a good one, as obviously some folks have, it will be as good as an S&W for all practical purposes. If you get a clunker Taurus, you will have trouble with it from day one and end up getting rid of it. Rossi has been the same way, only worse.

Plus, some folks have had problems getting their Taurus guns fixed; Taurus customer service seems to be as spotty as their Q/C - great for some, poor and very slow for others.

I am sure S&W, Ruger, etc., put out lemons, too, but there are a lot less than with Taurus.

The price difference between Taurus and S&W has two causes. The first is that S&W (like all American gun companies) has to put aside megabucks to protect against lawsuits sponsored by cities or states with unlimited tax payer dollars, or funded by the Soros-sponsored gun control lobby. (If Taurus loses a suit, they just close their U.S. office and tell the plaintiff to try and collect.) The second is that Taurus workers in Brazil don't get paid as much as workers in Massachusetts (see above on quality control).

Jim
James K is offline  
Old April 1, 2009, 05:24 PM   #23
shepherddogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Posts: 1,007
S&W= better trigger, better balance, better warranty, better accuracy, better resale, better everything. I've owned plenty of both. I still like S&W. And wouldn't have a Taurus.
shepherddogs is offline  
Old April 2, 2009, 04:29 AM   #24
Bones507
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2007
Posts: 132
I own Smiths that are 10 years old and better and i own quite a few Rugers. I have had two problems with a 686 and Smith took care of everything, no questions asked and didnt have to lay out a dime, not even shipping. I wouldnt think of buying anything else with the exception of a USFA single action. Older Smiths and Rugers are the best period although for the heavy loads i would trust the Ruger to handle the stress better than the Smith.
My 2 cents.
Bones507 is offline  
Old April 2, 2009, 06:15 PM   #25
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 7,486
Quote:
Why Is Smith and Wesson Better?
Because their revolvers look like revolvers should look! And you can't beat their customer service.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Reply

Tags
smith wesson

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07035 seconds with 7 queries